The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-12-10
INGERSOLL'S OPINIONS.

| 1NGhRSULL'S UPlNlUNS.
An esteemed friend residing in Ten
nesee, sends us a letter protesting
against the publication of Col. Inger-
soils opinions in THE UNIvERsALIsT.
The ground of objection is, that Mr..
| Ingersoll is an out and out infidel, and
cares as little for the Bible as for the
| Westminster Confession of Faith; that
the fact of his infdelity is so we'll
known that what he says against the
dogma of endless punishment counts for
very little in intelligent Christian cir
cles; and that Universalists are not in
need of any testimony from the noted
infidel in reference to the doctrine in
question. To quote him with approval,
in any direction is, in the view of our
correspondent, only adding to the noto-
riety of an avowed enemy of the Christ
ian religion.
Mr.. Ingersoll's opinions are just now
being very widely discussed in conpec-
ton with the North american Reuieao
article in which he replies to DR.. Field
with wonderful ability and eloquence
on the doctrine of eternal torment. We
well understand that his opinions are
not friendly to Christianity, and that
he discusses the subject from the ag-
nostic point of view. This, however,
does not interfere with the fact which
we attempted to disclose in our article,
viz: that Mr.. Ingersoll finds his chief
arguments against Christianity made
ready to his hand in the accredited
teachings of the orthodox church. Our
contention was, not that Mr.. Ingersoll
is proper witness for the Bible or
Christianity, but that with the ma
jority of sceptics, he bases his opposition
to Christianity mainly on the view that
it embodies and upholds those unreason-
able and even blasphemous doctrines of
the orthodox church which are persist
emily foisted upon the world as the pure
teachings Of Christianity. Any one
reading Mr.. Ingersoll's article will re-
cognize the fact that it is " orthodoxy"
and not Christianity, as interpreted by
Universalists and the more liberal men
in the orthodox fold, which arouses his
ire, and against which he hurls his ire
mendous sentences. 1t was to bring
out this fact in clear light that we wrote
the article of fortnight ago, Ginger
! soils Looking Glass for Orthodoxy"
So far as the evil influence of quot
ing from Ingersoll is concerned our
correspondent need not be at all dis
turbed. Just now the orthodox papers
of the country are very largely engaged
in discussing his opinions. What he
has to say in regard to the orthodox
doctrines may injure orthodoxy, but it
can not interfere with Universalism.
And the fact that the man is an infidel,
and has no faith whatever in God,
Christ, or immortality, does not destroy
the force of his utterances against the
doctrines in question. Ingersoll sees
very clearly the moral enormity of
many of the views which pass current
as Christianity, and the fact of his in
fidelity does not negative his opinions.
We present him as superior witness,
on rational and moral grounds, against
the doctrines which he opposes-which
doctrines, it is his misfortune to be-
lieve, are part and parcel of Christian
ity. We know to the reverse of this;
but we ask Mr.. Ingersoll to step to the
front as a witness that his chief argu-
ments against Christianity are derived
from the orthodox creeds, and not the
New Testament, as understood and in
terpreted by Universalists.
While we are writing these words
writer in the Atlanta Constitution deals
with the general question in the follow
ing words:
"There is hardly a family to be
found that has not lost some loved
one who died outside the church
outside the plan of salvation, and if
Calvanism be true, outside of all hope
and inside of eternal torment and
despair. We smother our feelings and |
turn away from the horrible picture.
We dare not deny the faith of our